security_fetch_cisa_kev

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description restates 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent' but adds useful context: 'CISA KEV catalog (updated daily, cached)' and describes output structure. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, starting with purpose, then properties, usage guidance, and feedback. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, annotations, and output schema, the description covers input format, output fields, source, usage guidance, and error handling via report_feedback. Completely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for cve_id. The description repeats the format but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a CVE is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.' It specifies the resource, action, and distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_cve_detail and security_fetch_cve_epss.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use (critical triage question not available in NVD) and alternatives: 'Use security_fetch_cve_detail for full CVE severity. Use security_fetch_cve_epss for exploit probability.' Also includes a feedback fallback mechanism.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.